Greg Sargent: This is The Daily Blast from The New Republic, produced and presented by the DSR Network. I’m your host, Greg Sargent.
Leah Litman: Thanks for having me.
Litman: So the law obliges the DOJ to actually release the files. They are supposed to redact information—particularly the victims’ names—but they are not supposed to be redacting information about the alleged wrongdoers.
Sargent: And this is what NPR is reporting. So, NPR used a novel trick here: It looked essentially at metadata on the documents to establish that what’s missing from the public release of the files is more than 50 pages of FBI interviews and notes from conversations with the person you just discussed. This is someone who accused Trump of sexual abuse as a minor decades ago. Can you go into that a little bit more?
Now, what the NPR story also indicates is this individual made a similar allegation in lawsuits against Epstein in 2019; that this information was in the information that was relevant to Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial and is indeed with the Maxwell trial team; that, again, the FBI interviewed this individual multiple times and the Epstein estate settled with them.
I mean, we are dealing with an allegation that the president of the United States is a child rapist. And to say that is alarming and shocking. And this is no longer just a scandal about elite impunity and the president being a pedophile—protecting pedophiles. It is about the president now being an accused pedophile.
Litman: Yes. Exactly. And again, we have seen him use the DOJ to go after political enemies. We’ve seen him use the DOJ to protect himself—dropping the cases that the DOJ had elected to bring against him and issuing mass pardons to his supporters, issuing pardons to people who contributed to his campaign or his super PACs, dropping investigations against his friends.
Sargent: So let’s talk about what we know about the woman. She charged that Trump did this quite disgusting thing involving her in 1983, after she was introduced to Trump by Epstein. The timeline gets a little fuzzy here, but I want to bear down on this point. In the summer of 2025, according to NPR, the FBI internally circulated some Epstein-related allegations that discuss Trump, and one of them involves this woman.
Litman: Yes, exactly. That is the allegation. The DOJ and FBI, apparently as part of the process of determining which files they were going to release, prepared a slide deck that was distributed within the executive branch that documented allegations against high-profile individuals.
Sargent: Right. And so into this steps Congressman Robert Garcia, who’s the ranking Democrat on the Oversight Committee. He put out a statement that’s something of a bombshell. I’m just going to read it.
Leah, let’s break this up into pieces. When Garcia says there, “I reviewed unredacted evidence logs,” he’s saying that the DOJ’s own logs list FBI interviews with this woman that were not in the released files—what you just referenced.
Sargent: Right. So we’ve basically got a number of sets of eyes on this log confirming this. We’ve got NPR essentially confirming it by using metadata, or whatever technique they used there. And we have Congressman Robert Garcia confirming exactly the same thing. He looked at the logs; it showed a number of interviews with this woman. Those interviews were not in the released files.
We have already seen that they are misredacting the documents. They’re not complying with this law, and all of the indications—based on their actions and statements—show they were manipulating this to their political advantage. But I don’t know that we really had evidence or a credible argument that the things they weren’t releasing included allegations of misconduct—not just that Trump knew about Epstein’s misdeeds, not just that Trump was enabling or facilitating it, but that he was participating in it.
Sargent: It’s unbelievable. So, piece number two of what Congressman Garcia said there is this—and presumably, it should be easy to confirm—the GOP Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, James Comer, could do exactly what Robert Garcia did: walk in there, look at the logs, and confirm whether the FBI interviews are missing, right?
Sargent: Obviously, this seems to put a lot of pressure on Republicans as well, unless I’m missing something.
Because you’re right. Congress could—if it wanted to, tomorrow—have all of the Oversight members go look at those documents and confirm that the DOJ is illegally withholding material that contains allegations of wrongdoing by the president.
Litman: So it’s a little unclear what the legal recourse is to the extent you’re asking about litigation, because in order to bring suit, you would need to identify a plaintiff who is injured by the failure to disclose those particular files.
Sargent: Could the White House or DOJ—or both, I guess—use some sort of legal trickery to somehow evade legal responsibility for the release of these particular files?
Sargent: What else could they say? Like, something a little more direct than just playing the “standing” card.
Sargent: Right. And so if a court did order the release and the DOJ refused, then it would go up to the Supreme Court, presumably.
Sargent: Okay. So could a Democratic-controlled House subpoena these specific files next year, presuming Democrats win?
Sargent: And then, when the DOJ refuses to release them, go to court to compel it?
Recall that when Donald Trump was subject to subpoenas by the New York District Attorney’s Office and a grand jury, as well as Congress, the Supreme Court essentially “slow-walked” those cases and injected a legal standard, and required courts to make additional findings that delayed the ability to actually enforce those subpoenas.
Litman: So the timeline would really be in the lower court’s hands in some ways. And so depending on which court it goes to, you can imagine some judges “slow-walking” it. Think of Judge Aileen Cannon in the obstruction of justice and documents case, who drew out that case for so long it effectively prevented the case from ever going to trial—even though it was one of the more straightforward ones.
In the Supreme Court’s opinion that I was alluding to earlier, Trump v. Mazars, the Court basically added a bunch of language that suggested, historically, those sort of demands were resolved by the political branches without involving courts. And once you go to court, then the Supreme Court added: Courts can assess the separation of powers considerations as to whether Congress is entitled to the information, or separation of powers considerations instead counsel hesitation and mean the executive branch has some discretion as to whether it can actually disclose them. So that is going to be part of the fight in a world where Democrats retake the House and try to go to court to actually enforce subpoenas.
Litman: There’s a chance. I would not put it at a very high chance. And again, that is just because of my very low confidence in this Supreme Court’s willingness to actually take seriously Congress’s interest in that information and their ability to enforce subpoenas that are directed against the executive branch.
Sargent: What exactly is—or would be—the legal basis for just saying that a congressional subpoena doesn’t count?
I mean, the president isn’t king, and yet Justice Thomas basically wanted to make him one. And so this Supreme Court has been salivating—foaming at the mouth—to expand presidential power that they are willing to add things to the Constitution that just aren’t there.
Sargent: What would be the ostensible basis? Like, in other words, what would be the Supreme Court’s “cover story” in this case?
Sargent: Boy, I guess that’s certainly possible. Just to wrap this up: Is there a role for whistleblowers here? Is there some other way the files come out? And let’s just really go for it here—do you think the files will come out?
So, yes, whistleblowers could play a significant role. Do I think we are going to see these files in the short term? I don’t think we’re going to see them before the midterms. Do I think we will see them eventually? Yes.
Sargent: Yeah, I mean, that’s the bottom line for me as well. In other places, people are being held accountable here; nobody’s being held accountable.
Sargent: Which, of course, is a doable thing—even though it probably shouldn’t come down to that.
Sargent: We say it on the pod all the time, but if you needed another reason to elect Democrats to control the House, you’re seeing it right now.
Litman: Thanks for having me.
Hence then, the article about transcript trump epstein scandal takes damning turn as dem drops bomb was published today ( ) and is available on The New Republic ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Transcript: Trump Epstein Scandal Takes Damning Turn as Dem Drops Bomb )
Also on site :